Talk:Vincent Cannistraro/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Vincent Cannistraro. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vincent Cannistraro

Vincent Cannistraro keeps coming to this page and deleting the naughty little facts about his role in the contra scandal that have all been well documented in the mainstream media.

Ryan's Bile

The so-called "naughty little facts" are the product of the author's bile and are not supported by main stream media. His sourcing is generally irrelevant to the claims he makes and when he does indeed provide sources for a malicious claim they are either histrionic, undocumented or just false. In all cases they are unsupported by mainstream media references.

Headline text

moderators please. If necessary I will go through each claim and add footnotes to source documents such as newspapers, websites and books if any of the facts are disputed, but I feel he has made his intentions perfectly clear by simply deleting everything I write and then accusing me on his talk page of using "propaganda". If the New York Times is "propaganda" then I really don't know what I should be using to find relevant information... Ryan4 15:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

==

Irrelevant source

The New York Times is a fine media but it was not cited as a source for Ryan's malicious claims.

Headline text

Ryan has a fixation on Central America and continues to cite disreputable sources for his claims. They are factually incorrect, in fact serious serious misrepresentations, but that has not deterred him from his obsessions. Edits will continue to be made as long as his attempts to distort history to mesh with his biases continue. ((User:Vincecan) 1500, 6 April 2006

References Added

I have now cited my sources for all claims that I made referring to Cannistraro. Ryan4 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not mainstream sources.

Ryans' "sources."

His cited sources are not relevant to his claims. I have provided correct sources such as the Joint Congressional Report on Iran/contra and material from the National Security Archive. If he really wants to educate himself he should plow through the report by Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh- but no, that would be too much work and might throw doubt on his claims. (user Vincecan, 6 April 2006)

Dead external links

These links are dead so I moved them here. I also do not think they are reputable given the URL but then again I never got a chance to read them. --70.48.240.217 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Reputable

The fact they are not reputable did not prevent Ryan from using them as sources for his slander.

Vincent Cannistraro

Vincent Cannistraro, [user:Vincecan] has repeatedly edited this page and removed information that has been extensively documented by the media about him that he obviously doesn't want people to know. Will a moderator please prevent him from stifling free speech and the dissemination of facts about him that he finds embarassing. Surely the constant removing of proven facts with an obvious agenda to decieve constitutes at least vandalism. Ryan4 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has no moderators. In my view, the user was acting reasonably fine. The Wikipedia isn't free speech. Free is as in libre to distribute, not as in freedom to edit. It is important to remain inside WP:NPOV. Computerjoe 's talk 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

This is typical of Ryan's methodology. He cites Washington Post stories about developments at the CIA that appeared years after I left and that are not about me, as if this is support for his irrelevant claims. After acknowledging some of his sources might be propaganda, he later re-employs them as references. It is obvious what his agenda is, and he is determined to label me with false charges regarding Central America and paramilitary operations. I did not train nor support the training of any Samoza forces- in fact I was removed by Director Bill Casey from the CAF for opposing paramilitary operations. But of course this conflicts with his lies so he ignores it. Its unfortunate that Ryan is so obsessed that he cannot learn.

Wow

I have to say, my friend, that you are really something else. You call my sources, that is, AP, UPI, the Washington Post, a book on Iran Contra, and a PBS interview that you gave, propaganda? I never once acknowledged that they were propaganda anywhere, but you slip that in completely out of nowhere to discredit my claims, and then finally, the real kicker is you then deny having had anything to do with so called "Samoza forces". This may lead people to falsely think that you had nothing to do with the Contras, even though the forces we are talking about are one and the same thing. You have really shown your true colours - it is you who are the expert propagandist. Ryan4 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan's WOW

You are incapable of doing research. You cite a special interest book by Kornbluh but ignore completely the Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent Counsel 4 August 1993. This is the work that is considered mainstream and definitive. Also, you cite irrelevant sources that have nothing to do with your specious claims. These are Washington Post and USA Today stories in which I am quoted as a source- on contemporary matters that occured long after I left government. Regarding alleged Samoza forces: don't you know anything about Northern and Southern Fronts? Apparently not. You and your partners are shameless in pursuing a single rail approach to history. Why don't you consult other bios on Wikipedia and see how a competent researcher does it.?

Just one example - your very own Testimony

"A former colleague of Oliver North testified today that responses North was preparing for House members on Contra assistance did not appear to be accurate.

Vincent Michael Cannistraro recounted for the jury in North's U.S. District Court trial a conversation in September 1985 in which North shared some of the responses he was preparing for House members asking about reports he was assisting the Nicaraguan rebels.

"He showed you some of his answers?" asked prosecutor John Keker.

"I asked him if they were accurate and they did not appear to be so," responded Cannistraro, who at the time worked with North at the National Securiy Council."

Except from: North Colleague Suspected He Was Lying to Congress, The Associated Press, April 4, 1989, Tuesday, PM cycle, Washington Dateline, 686 words, By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON, North Trial

Ryan's misuse of sources material text

What does this show? It only illustrates that Cannistraro worked at the NSC during the same period as North, who was responsible for the contra program and who was indicted by Lawrence Walsh. It indicates that Cannistraro thought North was preparing to perjure himself. It is source material that does not in any way support Ryan's lies.

Clarifying the relevance of one of my sources

Vincent Cannistraro, 41, the NSC director for intelligence programs, appeared before the federal grand jury in the morning, following Friday's testimony by another former top NSC official -- Ray Burghardt, who served as special assistant to the president and senior director for Latin American affairs.

Both men, once tapped by former national security adviser John Poindexter to take over Contra matters from North, left the NSC when Frank Carlucci took over Jan. 2 in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Cannistraro, a former CIA agent in Central America, was assigned last summer to work with North on Contra affairs, and in his role of coordinating intelligence programs throughout the administration, he headed several inter-agency meetings on aid for the rebels.

Contra sources have told United Press International they were introduced in the summer of 1986 by North to Cannistraro as someone they would be working with.

Cannistraro declined to comment."

Except from: Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, United Press International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON

Sourcing?

Typical of Ryan's selective sourcing. Who is Lori Santos?

Ryan's methodology is to cite dubious sourcing for dubious claims. He avoids the myriad other media items that cover these events and do not present the view Ryan seeks. This is called prejudice and is the opposite of neutrality.

And More

North, now a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, was an NSC staff member from 1981 to Nov. 25, 1986, when he was fired with the revelations that excess profits from the secret U.S. arms sales to Iran were diverted to the Contras.

North also managed a clandestine airlift that ferried weapons and supplies to the Contras, a CIA-formed rebel force that was trying to overthrow Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government.

Cannistraro was a mysterious witness. He identified himself to the jury only as someone who holds degrees in English literature, had "lived in a number of countries" was "aware of CIA activities for the Contras."

But he provided the first testimony that directly supports North's contention that he was explicitly authorized for all his actions for the rebels.

Except from: Witness: North directed to help Contras in '84, United Press International, April 3, 1989, Monday, BC cycle, Washington News, 822 words, By ANNE SAKER, WASHINGTON

More obfuscation from Ryan

The impartial reader should consult the Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/contra matters, Lawrence Walsh, August 1993, Washington DC. This is the definitive report on the matters in question.

And yet More

On Monday, Cannistraro described a meeting in the spring of 1984 at which William Casey, the CIA director, said the Boland Amendment, which outlawed US aid, did not apply to the NSC staff and that, therefore, President Reagan designated North to take over the contra program.

Yesterday, Keker read aloud from Cannistraro's account of the meeting in his 1987 grand jury testimony, and noted that it said nothing of the sort.

Cannistraro replied that he was talking about a different meeting before the grand jury. Keker then tried to discredit Cannistraro's credibility.

Except from: North called a liar by defense witness, The Boston Globe, April 5, 1989, Wednesday, City Edition, NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. 3, 691 words, By Fred Kaplan, Globe Staff, WASHINGTON

This is particularly interesting, because you acknowledge that Reagan transferred the Contra operation to the NSC, while at the same time saying that North was to be head of the operation. However, once the operations were transferred, you were made director of NSC Intel and so would have had to be updated with all pertinent information at the least, if not be directing the operation itself.

Wrong Again Ryan

Cannistraro was a director of intelligence programs at the NSC not head of NSC intelligence. That job was Ken DeGraffenreid, the special assistant to President Reagan for Intelligence. Cannistraro had no responsibility for the contras at the NSC nor did he have any authority over North, who reported directly to John Poindexter. You keep repeating the same errors because they are so convenient for your misapprehensions.

Also interestingly, Cannistraro was testifying as a witness for the prosecution, not for the North defense.

An Easy Picture to Paint

Do you still want to claim that you had nothing to do with Contras?

Ryan's Obsession With Error

Yes, you are obsessed with culling anything you think supports your prejudice. You can selectively choose anything, no matter how fragmentary and inconclusive, that appears to agree with your preconception, but nothing that does not. You will not cite mainstream sources, definite material such as the Walsh investigative report, but only rants from extremists. The facts are that I was moved out of Central America because I opposed William Casey and Duane Clarridge's program of paramilitary operations. I was eventually sent to the NSC to be head of the Afghan Working Group (supporting US assistance to the anti-Soviet resistance) and had nothing- nothing to do with the Contras or with Oliver North's direction of the contra program. He was not working for me- he worked directly for John Poindexter. You keep misrepresenting my position- I was Director of Intelligence Programs- one of three at the NSC. I know it is not easy for an outsider to understand how government works, but you could at least give it a try.

I am tired of the maliciousness you demonstrate and the obsession about Central America, but you do not wish to understand, only to denigrate. I will not be defamed by ignorance.

And then of course there's this

I somehow completely forgot to add this gem to the list.

“Following the 1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency’s task force on the contras.”

Except from: Tale of Two White House Aides: Confidence and Motivation; North Viewed as a Can-Do Marine Who Went Too Far in Zealousness, The Washington Post, November 30, 1986, Sunday, Final Edition Correction Appended, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 2694 words, David Ignatius, Washington Post Staff Writer, FOREIGN NEWS, NATIONAL NEWS, BIOGRAPHY

What else did you forget?

You seem to have forgotten or overlooked much material on the other side of the ledger as well, including the book: "More Precious than Piece: The Cold War and the Struggle for the the Third World by Peter Rodman. Rodman, who is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, was a senior NSC official during the Reagan years in question. Ryan should really try reading a book once in a while.

Please Help

This Vincecan, who claims to be Vincent Cannistraro, repeatedly removes claims that are footnoted and sourced, without providing a single counter claim or footnote to back up what he is saying. What are the wikipedia guidlines about someone who does this? Is this not vandalism? Ryan4 18:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Now, Mike60 is doing the same thing. Ryan4 18:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dealing on user talk page.--Commander Keane 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cannistaro has emailed Wikipedia

I am currently awaiting his response on which facts are incorrect. I will attempt to please both subject and neutrality. -- Zanimum 19:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all well and good, except that, of course, if he really is Cannistraro, then he will go out of his way to lie about his role in this entire affair. That's why we need footnotes and documentation to support our claims. We do not just trust that someone must be telling the truth because they know better than anyone what they did. Surely my footnotes and documentation are enough to convince even the most skeptical of Cannistraro's past. The fact that he is obviously ashamed of it and is willing to lie to cover it up should not mean that we should back down and allow him to win this childish game. If he has a single factual source that counters my claims, then let him present it, like a reasonable person, on the talk page. Given his actions concerning the editing of this page, should we really just take his word for it? Ryan4 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan's Paranoia

So now Ryan reveals that he is not a historian or interested in impartial narrative. He claims he has used footnotes and documentation to support his biases, but I have shown that his sourcing is selective, in most cases irrelevant to the statements he is making, or derive from known propaganda web sites that he continues to list for external reading. And his charges that Cannistraro will "lie to cover it up" demonstrate his total lack of impartiality. Attempts on the talk page to correct his claims have been unavailing, probably because he has no interest in truth, only in propaganda. So we should take the word, without question, of this Ryan who cannot conduct research, cannot correct his errors, who depends on extremists and propagandists for source material, and when he does cite legitimate source material it is irrelevant to his claims.

Vincecan's Constant Tirades

I will restate just two quotes, first of all

(1) Following the 1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency’s task force on the contras.

Except from: Tale of Two White House Aides: Confidence and Motivation; North Viewed as a Can-Do Marine Who Went Too Far in Zealousness, The Washington Post, November 30, 1986, Sunday, Final Edition Correction Appended, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 2694 words, David Ignatius, Washington Post Staff Writer, FOREIGN NEWS, NATIONAL NEWS, BIOGRAPHY

(2) Cannistraro, a former CIA agent in Central America, was assigned last summer to work with North on Contra affairs, and in his role of coordinating intelligence programs throughout the administration, he headed several inter-agency meetings on aid for the rebels.

Except from: Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, United Press International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON

One if from the Washington Post, the other is from UPI. These are neither "propaganda vehicles", nor are they irrelevant to the claim that you were involved with the contras.

Next I will simply say this: you say you are Vincent Cannistraro, but that doesn't mean you necessarily are. Therefore, what you say must be backed up by some kind of verifiable sources. When a user comes to wikipedia, the fact that somebody called Vincecan edited the Vincent Cannistraro page will not mean that they should therefore accept a long list of claims with absolutely no factual documentation. The wikip edia articles that are well written and accurate, for the most part, have sources and footnotes that are there for the reader to check the claims made in the articles. I have include such materials with every one of the claims in the article. You categorically refuse to do so, and have provided not one shred of evidence to support anything you say. Furthermore, if you actually are Vincent Cannistraro, then wikipedia guidlines suggest you should not be editing a page about yourself, especially as it is abundantly clear that you cannot keep a cool, level demeanor. Ryan4 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan's Inability to Document

Here again you go and put in two sources you have previously cited, because they appear to sustain your claims. I have cited mainstream sources from Lawrence Walsh (instead of Lori Santos' dubious interpretation), the Joint Congressional Committee Investigation of Iran/contra and several other mainstream reportage including the Rodman book. You, like a mechanical monkey, keep repeating that you have backed up material from factual sources as if your repeated assertions make it so. No shred of evidence? On the contrary there is voluminous evidence to the contrary. However it would actually require you to read books and reports with an open mind. That's what you sorely lack.

This Voluminous Evidence

This is how it works. You can't just say "I claim X" and then say that claim X is verified by book Z. You have to actually find the quote that supports your claim, and then cite the page number, etc. It is clearly you who has the inablility to document. Secondly, once you have done this, you must then analyze whether or not there might have been a reason for the author to claim X other than simply reporting a fact. The fact that your sources tend to be either former NSC officials or official government reports leads me to believe that there is a likelihood that those documents might be skewed in favour of government officials. Or are you going to now claim that the government never tries to cover up or mislead about anything they do? This is Iran-Contra we are talking about here. Surely you at least acknowledge that government officials would have a motive to omit facts or exonerate the government's actions? Either way, you have to actually present the documentation in a proper way before any analysis can be done. You still haven't done that. I have. And what's your problem with Lori Santos? Are you flat out denying the facts documented by my sources? Ryan4 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Selective evidence

Yes, in many of them including the one you cite from Lori. But the problem goes way beyond that: It is that for many of us you have already formed a judgement before trying to enlist source material to support it. This is clear if one follows the history of your edits from the beginning. You started off, and actually continued to cite, two well known propaganda web sites for your external links, Two articles from HIR/HOM/IS for example. The fact that you violate WIKIPEDIA standards to cite these web pages is telling. There is no fairness test with you- you believe your opinions and you resist any changes, no matter the source. This has become basically a fruitless exchange. You have the arrogance of belief, like many zealots, and nothing will dissuade you and you can't concede that you could be wrong on any assertion you made, no matter how minor. This is not a recipe for dialogue and improving a piece to which you appear to have a religious attachment. Given this, I see no purpose in continuing this thrust and parry.

Correction

I have never violated wikipedia standards in any way. The links to HIR are not citations or references, but in the external links section. Since the site is not my own, nor a commercial site, the inclusion of the links does not violate any guidelines.

You continue to make blanket statements without providing any cited source material, and therefore I assume that this is because you concede that my position is irrefutable.

If you want to actually improve the piece that feel free to actually gather together some factual information and then maybe we can have a civilized debate about what should be added. Otherwise, the article will probably remain as it stands. Ryan4 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is Ryan4?

We have all been subject to a dialogue of the deaf regarding this article. We should not allow this article to stand without edits and without knowing who is Ryan4. Someone who makes scurrilous assertions without the ability of the Wkipedia user community to edit or improve a biography should not hide in anonymity. Who are you? What is your full name and your affiliation? Are you part of an organization, and if so, which one? Is there a political agenda here? Allow the readers to judge for themselves. Mike60, 12 April 2006.

I actually have a user page you know. I have no reason to hide my identity. I think a more important question, considering that you have been acting in perfect concert with Vincecan, is - who are you? Ryan4 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Who am I?

Your user page is short on biographical information and does not list an affiliation with a political organization. This is the point: Who are you really and what agenda are you pursuing? I clearly am sympathetic to Cannistraro, having worked with him in the past, although we don't share "perfect concert" of action. But I can recognize half digested political views when I see them in your article; you demonstrate your prejudices consistently throughout this so-called dialogue. You must really be a form of divinity, casting down your judgements from the heavens without entertaining any dissent. Except of course, that you are also a self-proclaimed atheist.Mike60,12 April 2006

"Your user page...does not list an affiliation with a political organization."

X	This user is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

And you're right. I certainly do have a prejudice:

{{User anti-fascism}} Ryan4 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

|-

medcabal

Hi all -- I'm here as part of the medcabal to help resolve the disputes on the page here.

First of all, just to be clear: we must all assume good faith; what this essentially means here is that inquiring into or guessing about other people's "real motives" is not OK. Secondly, I strongly encourage everyone to read the "tips" section at the end of my signature -- there is no way to resolve the dispute unless we can all work together in a spirit of good will.

Finally, so we can begin: as I understand, people want to remove parts of the bio. Can someone provide me with the diffs for these removals and a brief explaination as to why they were removed?

Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that whatever controversy there was has died down, and I'm going to close the mediation. Please contact me on my talk page if I've made a mistake. Sdedeo (tips) 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)